TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 782X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been decided in favour of the assessee for the AY 2012-13 [ 2020 (2) TMI 1647 - ITAT DELHI] wherein as held that invocation o f sub-Section (2) of Section 14A is conspicuously absent and hence re-computation of the disallowance is not legally valid. And considering the investments in mutual funds and in shares are through PMS, hardly any expense is incurred. As such the estimated disallowance made by assessee suo-moto is reasonable as it meets the expenses on account of STT as well as in direct expenses. Hence, we hereby hold that no additional disallowance is called for by invoking Rule 8D - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 4481/DEL/2019 - - - Dated:- 5-6-2022 - SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. YOGESH KUMA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a Company registered under the Companies Act and engaged in the business of manufacturing, exporters and importers, traders, representatives consultants, distributions buyers and sellers of home furnishing item like cushion, bed cover sheets.etc. During the year Rs. 2,92,018/- was received by the assessee as dividend from investments. The only issue emerges from the grounds of Appeal is relate to confirmation of additional disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Act for Rs. 2,92,018/- by the CIT(A) which was made by the Assessing Officer as against the disallowance u/s 14A of Rs. 4,16,149/- computed by the assessee. Thus, the Assessing Officer computed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 24, 39,31,620/- as against the declared i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as under:- 14. From the above, it can be deciphered that Rule 8D is not mandatory, the Assessing Officer must record his satisfaction that he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure for cogent reasons. Satisfaction of the Assessing Officer has to be arrived at, having Taurus Home Furnishings Ltd. regard to the accounts of the assessed as enunciated in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v CIT 402 ITR 640 (SC) and Godrej Boyce v DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC). 15. From the records or from the arguments of the ld. DR, we find that the invocation o f sub-Section (2) of Section 14A is conspicuously absent and hence re-computation of the disallowance is no t legally valid. And co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
